All over this capital city of ours, where concrete meets creativity, a silent battle unfolds. This battle shapes our behaviour, influences our interactions, and defines our shared spaces. It's one we are all subliminally affected by, one waged through design in the form of hostile architecture.
Hostile architecture, also known as defensive or exclusionary design, uses environmental elements to discourage specific activities or individuals from public areas. The intention may seem righteous enough—to prevent loitering, vandalism, or other undesirable behaviors—but the consequences of this subliminal tactic are far-reaching. Marginalized groups, including the homeless, youth, low-income individuals, and addicts bear the brunt of these design choices.
If you are one of the million people that call Ottawa home you've no doubt encountered much of these design tactics, and you may not even have noticed! We're all victims of design tactics such as anti-homeless spikes- like at Les suites and many other places along Rideau to prevent people from sitting on ledges. This is reminiscent of those used to deter pigeons from nesting on balconies. Imagine slanted ledges, armrested benches, or oddly designed rear-facing seats with dividers in between - these can be found all along bamk street. Not only preventing comfort but also deterring us from being close as humans and neighbours, and making communicating less likely among strangers. Visualize sprinklers that detect like in confederation park or city hall, and narrow trash bin openings to prevent dumping, curved walls like those used by oc transpo at each train station, and blaring music or high pitch frequencies and alarms like on Montreal road —all strategically placed to manipulate behavior.
While the term "hostile architecture" is relatively new, its roots trace back through history. Humanity has long sought to regulate public spaces, whether through imposing statues, grand fountains, or carefully positioned benches and planters. Today, hostile architecture is often associated with crime prevention design, emphasizing natural surveillance and access control.
Yet, as our cities grow, so does the prevalence of exclusionary design. Major urban centers like Stockholm grapple with this trend, exacerbating social inequalities and weakening community bonds. The very spaces meant to foster connection and shared experiences inadvertently push people apart.
Urban planners and architects face an ethical dilemma. On one hand, they argue that hostile architecture enhances safety and cleanliness. On the other, it dehumanizes individuals, widens social gaps, and erodes the inclusivity of public spaces. It presents a consistent subliminal belief that all homeless people and addicts are dirty and/or criminals, which is simply untrue and unfair to suggest. As we navigate this delicate balance, we must ask ourselves: What kind of city do we want to build?
Let's opt for a more compassionate approach—one that prioritizes well-being and dignity. Imagine parks with inviting benches, where everyone feels welcome. Picture streets adorned with public art, encouraging creativity and connection. Envision plazas that celebrate diversity, rather than exclude it - and a city with true community rather than one with divisions.
As we shape our cities, let's remember that design isn't just about aesthetics; it's about humanity. By embracing inclusivity, we create spaces that reflect our shared values and uplift every individual. After all, a city's true beauty lies not in its skyscrapers, but in the smiles exchanged on its sidewalks and the laughter echoing through its squares. Let's build cities that embrace us all and encourage empathy and inclusion.
Hostile architecture, with its cold concrete edges and spiked surfaces, sends an unmistakable message: "You are not welcome here." But beyond its intended purpose, this design approach has unintended consequences that ripple through our urban spaces. Let's explore them:
- Exclusion and Marginalization
Hostile architecture disproportionately targets vulnerable and marginalized communities—those who rely on public spaces the most. Homeless individuals, youth, and low-income people often bear the brunt of these designs. The effect extends to seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and caregivers as well.
- Erosion of Generosity: By prioritizing exclusion over inclusivity, hostile architecture introduces a coldness into our shared spaces, subtly telling us who belongs and who doesn't. It solidifies misconxeptins that take root deep in our brains. So that we don't even realize when we may be subscribing to an idea that is discriminatory.
- Impact on Social Relations:
When benches curve uncomfortably or spikes adorn ledges, they discourage interaction. These designs subtly inhibit social bonds, eroding the very essence of public spaces meant for connection and community.
Hostile architecture forces us to question the purpose of our cities. Who are they truly meant for? As we navigate modernist aesthetics and corporatism, we must re-imagine public spaces to prioritize inclusivity and well-being.
In our pursuit of safety and cleanliness, let's not sacrifice compassion and dignity. A city's true vibrancy lies in its ability to embrace all of its inhabitants, regardless of their circumstances.
By taking a stand against hostile architecture, we can reclaim our urban spaces for everyone. Let's build cities that reflect our shared humanity and embrace the diversity that makes them vibrant. Together, we can create environments where everyone feels welcome and valued.
Remember: “poverty stops equality, equality stops poverty! “ - Dorothy Oconnell
Support Third Eye Street Media and join us in our mission: Opening eyes, changing lives!.
Add comment
Comments